Challenge: Get the .276 T2 cartridge into service

In between hatred for Douglas MacArthur and "intermediate round" worship, many believe that adopting the .276 Pedersen was a lost opportunity. So, here's a challenge: Get the .276 T2 cartridge into service.

Now, I'm sure that there will be people saying "replace MacArthur" or "have intermediate rounds be tested more" or "sack the backward testers" and such, but there is an issue with this:

One additional fact supporting this is that the .276 caliber round that the T3E2 used, and the .276 caliber that would have eventually been adopted had MacArthur’s edict never happened, were not the same! The round used in the T3E2 Garand rifle was a well-tapered cartridge with a .447″ cartridge base, thinner than the .473″ base of the .30-06 Springfield round. However, this round did not meet the performance specifications desired by the US Army when loaded with every kind of propellant the Army wanted available, and as a result the specification was changed to the larger .276 T2 cartridge, which utilized a modified version of the .30-06’s .473″ case head, with about the same overall length as the previous .276 cartridge (2.85″). This cartridge was about the same size and weight as the more modern 7mm-08 Remington round based on the .308 Winchester (the civilian offshoot of the .30 Light Rifle, which became 7.62 NATO), and it was this larger T2 round that would have been adopted as the .276 caliber, had that come to pass. In other words, had the .30 caliber not won the day, the US would have adopted a round very similar in size, weight, and capability to the later 7.62 NATO. It seems likely to me that had the .276’s adoption gone through, it would have precluded the .30 Light Rifle cartridge program, rather than the .223 caliber project. In this alternate timeline, maybe today the US Army would be using 5.56mm NATO in conjunction with a venerable, well-tapered “7mm NATO” based on the .276 T2!

So, aside from the issues of stockpile, depression, and budget, there was the simple issue that despite all the propaganda, the .276 T2 that was to be adopted was not really that different from either the .30-06 or the 7.62 NATO. In fact, the supposed ten-round en bloc would have likely been an eight-round in the end.


Taking all this into consideration, under what conditions would the .276 T2 cartridge been accepted into service?
 
One of the things to consider was most of the existing .30-06 was of the M1 Ball, that also didn't work well in the Garand. OTL it was mostly used by the USN/Marines in Machine Guns, while the Army pushed for the M2 Ball that has worse long range performance.

Have somebody get this into MacArthur's thick skull that the existing stocks would be used in Machine Guns and BARs, while the new Garand gets .276 T2

Call it stimulus spending for Winchester and Remington-Peters to make new ammo
 
Kill MacArthur. It may not get the .276 into service, or even actually help much, but it's a good start for any timeline.
 
So it seems the .276 round would be most like the later 7.62mm NATO and if so then it would not give us much improvement to move into an automatic "assault" rifle just as the M14 simply fell short given the power of its ammunition. That said it might have still given the M1 Garand a slight improvement in performance that spurs development of a dedicated "light machinegun" to pair with it. Not bad developments but still a generation away from moving towards what we regard as "modern" infantry weaponry. It appears the M1 Carbine still gets developed as the need is still there and its full automatic version might become the grandfather to an American assault rifle. Nothing revolutionary but perhaps significant seeds to shape the course of weapons development for the US Army infantry.
 
One of the things to consider was most of the existing .30-06 was of the M1 Ball, that also didn't work well in the Garand. OTL it was mostly used by the USN/Marines in Machine Guns, while the Army pushed for the M2 Ball that has worse long range performance.

Have somebody get this into MacArthur's thick skull that the existing stocks would be used in Machine Guns and BARs, while the new Garand gets .276 T2

Call it stimulus spending for Winchester and Remington-Peters to make new ammo

Not sure if you're in the position to be saying MacArthur has a thick skull. Developing the M2 Ball required only changing the propellant and the bullet, while adopting the .276 T2 would mean retooling starting with making the barrels. There is a reason why in the era of rifled guns and artillery, calibers tend to stay constant unless there are significant improvements.


So it seems the .276 round would be most like the later 7.62mm NATO and if so then it would not give us much improvement to move into an automatic "assault" rifle just as the M14 simply fell short given the power of its ammunition.

But remember, .276 T2 was made with 1930s technology, so if the same 1950s modernization that resulted in 7.62mm NATO was applied, we could get something close to the intermediate round that so many believe is the end all.

The issue is getting the .276 T2 adopted in the first place.
 
But remember, .276 T2 was made with 1930s technology, so if the same 1950s modernization that resulted in 7.62mm NATO was applied, we could get something close to the intermediate round that so many believe is the end all.

The issue is getting the .276 T2 adopted in the first place.

If I understand the .276 as it would be adopted rather than as proposed, it is in effect little more than a 7.62mm NATO cartridge, thus my musing that it is an incremental step akin to the M14, and thus a "failure" to get a true assault rifle and intermediate round as seems to be the end goal on the discussion. I agree that to get it adopted sets the US Army more fully on that path. The quandary is getting it adopted as it seems to offer no obvious improvement over the existing round that served in the Garand as is while offering a lot of logistics and other complications. If we had a no looming war in Europe scenario would that let the Army be more "experimental" or would it threaten the Garand itself? Is there any obvious forward thinking officer in Ordnance or Infantry to fight for this round? I did not stumble across one "sad face".
 
Not sure if you're in the position to be saying MacArthur has a thick skull.

Hindsight allows it, easily.

A new cartridge would be no different than the adoption of the M1 Carbine that required all new tooling.. All the existing 30-06 still would be there for the Springfields, BARs and M1919s that worked fine with M1 Ball, and there is no need for a production run of M2Ball. There were no plans for an automatic .276 in the '30s
 
You should look at what the British dealt with
38S&W
9mm
45ACP
.455
.303
7.92 Besa
50 Vickers
50 BMG
55 Boys

But some of this can be chalked up to the "crisis" management under threat of war and its outbreak. I know there is a lot of discussion regarding the UK adopting its own "next generation" cartridge or in the alternative switching from .303 to 7.92mm in common machinegun/rifle, not to mention adoption of a pistol cartridge with pistol and SMG. I toy with the British Army interwar when I want to enjoy the Circus. Seriously, both Armies had some lost opportunity we now grind for grist, but in fairness the .30-06 (7.62x63mm) was a fine round that served well, we only get to see the advantages once the StG44 and Kurz round are battle tested and that is a "generation" after the Garand is introduced. Without the war I struggle to see any change in US Army ammunition until 1960s perhaps?
 
Hindsight allows it, easily.

I believe not, since your analysis is quite out of touch.


A new cartridge would be no different than the adoption of the M1 Carbine that required all new tooling.

First, M1 Carbine was still a 7.62mm, so the barrel retooling is much easier.

Second, and more importantly, the competition for the carbine started in 1940, when the US was pouring money into development. Where are you going to get that sort of funding in 1933, especially since you have to retool for the most difficult part of the gun, the barrel?



If I understand the .276 as it would be adopted rather than as proposed, it is in effect little more than a 7.62mm NATO cartridge, thus my musing that it is an incremental step akin to the M14, and thus a "failure" to get a true assault rifle and intermediate round as seems to be the end goal on the discussion. I agree that to get it adopted sets the US Army more fully on that path. The quandary is getting it adopted as it seems to offer no obvious improvement over the existing round that served in the Garand as is while offering a lot of logistics and other complications. If we had a no looming war in Europe scenario would that let the Army be more "experimental" or would it threaten the Garand itself? Is there any obvious forward thinking officer in Ordnance or Infantry to fight for this round? I did not stumble across one "sad face".

I was looking for some butterflies to push the US to adopt .276 T2. Everyone knew that the round was better than .30-06, but they couldn't justify the associate costs for changing the caliber. One idea I have is a 1920s intervention in Latin America that put logistical strains on the supply chain and highlighted the necessity of the marginal improvements that .276 T2 might have provided. Combine this with the stockpile being actually used, and there might be enough of a push for the caliber's adoption.

However, I'm not sure if this would be enough.
 
Hindsight allows it, easily.

A new cartridge would be no different than the adoption of the M1 Carbine that required all new tooling.. All the existing 30-06 still would be there for the Springfields, BARs and M1919s that worked fine with M1 Ball, and there is no need for a production run of M2Ball. There were no plans for an automatic .276 in the '30s
Plus IOTL the ammunition for the Garand was loaded into 8 Round Clips so in practice it really wasn't particularly interchangeable with other .30 caliber ammunition.
 
Hows this.

With supplies from home obviously cut off the Dutch East Indies opted to buy the Johnson Rifle. Now the US was gearing up for it's own rearmament so there would be a chance that any N.E.I order could be diverted.

An answer to that wiuld be to have their own production facilities but the N.E.I don't have the industry capable of doing so.

As a result they decide to use their oil revenue to pay for hese facilities to built in Perth West Australia. It's close to the N.E.I so deliveries should be simple, but the Johnson is not a weapon the British Commonwealth use and niether is its ammunition so they're unlikely to be diverted to Australian/British use.

As a new ammunition production line would have to be built anyway the N.E.I opt to purchase tooling for the redundant .276 cartridge for their new rifle. This is mainly because again as a non standard round the tooling is unlikely to be diverted to other countries needs.

Production begins but before any rifles or ammunition can be delivered the Dutch East I dies are over run and Australia finda itself with production facilities someone else paid for for a modern semi automatic rifle and its ammunition. Having the Japanese on their doorstep and the Citizens Militia fighting tooth and nail in New Guinea and needing any advantage they can get production is continued and the Johnson Rifles and ammunition is sent to the front. To avoid having a seperate machine gun round Johmson Light Machineguns are also built.

The .276 and Johnson replace the .303 and SMLE in use in the Pacific, and after the war the .276 is adopted as the standard Commonwealth Cartridge.
 
As a new ammunition production line would have to be built anyway the N.E.I opt to purchase tooling for the redundant .276 cartridge for their new rifle. This is mainly because again as a non standard round the tooling is unlikely to be diverted to other countries needs.

Not sure about the economics of this. Would the US have extra capacity to take up an order for something completely new?

Still, I can understand the general idea. This would be an interesting situation, since it would butterfly away the near-incompetent developmental process of .280, so the Commonwealth can be in the position to force the issue by having a fully developed round.
 
I was looking for some butterflies to push the US to adopt .276 T2. Everyone knew that the round was better than .30-06, but they couldn't justify the associate costs for changing the caliber. One idea I have is a 1920s intervention in Latin America that put logistical strains on the supply chain and highlighted the necessity of the marginal improvements that .276 T2 might have provided. Combine this with the stockpile being actually used, and there might be enough of a push for the caliber's adoption.

However, I'm not sure if this would be enough.

Indeed the inertia is challenging, but you might have something. Were the Marines independent enough to adopt a new cartridge and have the pull to pursue its own weaponry? Reminds me of how the M16 was first bought by the USAF for Security Police and once the nose was under the tent wall the Army was buggered. Ship the USMC spec Garand with this round to the Banana Wars and China Marines to experiment with towards lighter rifles. Or closer to home can we get the Airborne to call out a "specialist" rifle to trial? Bean counters might hate it but now you are talking a few hundred or thousand derivatives of a "standard" issue rifle and a separate logistic chain not threatening to the Quartermasters' "mountain" of 30-06. Or is that too cheeky?
 
keep in mind that the US Army adopted the .30 carbine with a totally new cartridge...I really like the idea of the M-1 carbine in .276 with a slightly shorter cartridge
 
Indeed the inertia is challenging, but you might have something. Were the Marines independent enough to adopt a new cartridge and have the pull to pursue its own weaponry? Reminds me of how the M16 was first bought by the USAF for Security Police and once the nose was under the tent wall the Army was buggered. Ship the USMC spec Garand with this round to the Banana Wars and China Marines to experiment with towards lighter rifles. Or closer to home can we get the Airborne to call out a "specialist" rifle to trial? Bean counters might hate it but now you are talking a few hundred or thousand derivatives of a "standard" issue rifle and a separate logistic chain not threatening to the Quartermasters' "mountain" of 30-06. Or is that too cheeky?

I have an idea, will post later.


keep in mind that the US Army adopted the .30 carbine with a totally new cartridge...I really like the idea of the M-1 carbine in .276 with a slightly shorter cartridge

Then it would no longer be a "carbine" that the US Army wanted.
 
Top